Since this is a typical chaired public meeting with an agenda, my guess is that they will not discuss it till it comes up on the agenda. And, the Q/A /comment session comes afterwards.

Just a small technical clarification. The really is no Q&A. The time reserved at the end of the meeting is 'Public Comment'. Trying to coierce a reply out the department of the Advisory Board will be met with terse and sometimes sarcastic reply's. Being disruptive is a sure fire way to NEVER get the DNR or anyone else to listen to your viewpoint, regardless of how valid they may be. Like WhiteRhino and others have said, dress nice, don't interupt, listen, speak your peace and then sit down. If the AB or DNR want to ask you a question, they will. Otherwise, all you get to do is make a public comment, just like the agenda says.
I have to agree with both Jim and Pat on this. I don't think users should be denied the right to speak if they have a position or statement on one of the topics presented that night or any other night. But I don't think the Advisory Board want to hear 20 prople saying the same thing. Having different view points and different angles to the subject might just hit a nerve with someone in the DNR. But make no mistake. Anything done to benefit us will HAVE to be initiated by the DNR. The Advisory Board is just that, Advisory. Their a sounding board for the User community M/C and ATV, (Full size has yet to ever be seated due to the DNR believing full size vehicles have all the forest roads to recreate on.) Law enforcement, Environmental issues, Industry, and DNR. While their terms, AB Board members that is, are subject to controversy that topic alone might be a good 'Public Comment' to make, i.e. When are nominations being accepted for expiring terms on the board?
jim-kb8ymf

I'd like EVERYONE to show and sign the registration sheet as a 4x4 user.
Numbers on the attendance list show user group concern.

I just don't think we (the users, AB attendees, and/or GLFWDA) should comment on the same night the video is revealed to the "public" for the first time. Comments should be well laid out before submission to the Department. . . and that's IF the Department is even looking for a response from the 4x4 community.

If we have 20 people show and act like OMB (sorry OMB, but you are acting like a perfect example at the moment), we might as well pack up and go home, we'd never see anything form the Dept. again. THANK GOD everyone here seems logical and genuinely interested in learning how to make a positive impact on the situation!

Having been ordered by the Legislature that 25% more ORV paths are to be designated, and having the Forest Certification inspectors tell them that they ALMOST didn't get the certification because of illegal ORV use - at the same time - is really putting the pressure on the Department to start addressing the system's inadequacies. Even Steve Kubisiak has expressed an interest in sitting down with the GLFWDA Land Use Committee to see where we can work together for the improvement of our sport in Michigan.

I think we're already seeing this change in attitude by the Department. Without it I don't think we'd have had the Rock Crawl grants approved for St. Hellens or the Mounds - and BOTH grants were approved this year.

We need to support, collaborate with, and be nice to every, and any, agency who has anything to do with land management. We need to keep in mind that we just might be able to get quite a bit accomplished by working together. Those issues which we can't agree upon are no problem at all . . . we simply agree that we disagree, and let a Judge decide who's right. That's a Judge's job.

There's never any need to be anything but nice.

It's kind of like in "Roadhouse", only when it's time to "not be nice" in the movie, it's time for us to "continue to be nice and ask a Judge for the Court's opinion".

Whenever I respond to things, I feel much like an outsider looking in. Which is not always a bad thing.

I think what Trail Fanatic is trying to avoid by having GLFWDA give a consolidated, somewhat rehearsed and unified response from the full sized offroad community is an "OMB "Please leave these procedings"" type of reaction from the DNR. I like to think of it as a court trial. Although I'm the guy that's accused of murder, and I KNOW that I didn't do it, I'm still letting the lawyer talk, make the objections, and handle procedure because I'll probably do something that the prosecuters can twist and manipulate against me. I suppose a representative from the club that the 'offenders' belong to, or the individuals themselves to speak would be a plus as well. It would show that we do hold ourselves accountable and this was NOT an intentional breaking of the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trail_Fanatic

IF you have something to say, WRITE IT DOWN. We would/could then have a discussion on it on our own private forum, compile all of our comments, form them into a concise, cohesive document that we can read or submit as the 'official' GLFWDA response to the video at the following AB meeting.

Okay, so I'll shoot my mouth off first about what I think should be addressed at the AB meeting.

1. This is NOT a habitual activity by the offroad community. Especially those in organized clubs, or individuals that belong to GLFWDA.

2. The underlying reason for this incident (and if you investigate the DNR citations written in the last... say... millenium I'm sure you'll find they're similar) is a lack of knowledge of what the laws truly SAY. (notice the word "say") Education of the public with an emphasis on owners of SUV, ORV vehicles is a serious downfall of the DNR. People simply don't know when they are breaking the law. Now one of the big stipulations of 'laws' is that ignorance is not a defense. A recommendation is to send a task force to the most popular ORV sites in Michigan and have an information booth set up. Much like the state police do at the county fairs or normal summertime community events for recruiting.

3. Lastly the 'laws' themselves leave a great deal of interpretation to the 'law' to the officer on the scene; and inconsitency between officers' interpretations is confusing us in the offroad community. For example, a DNR officer in the U.P. may not cite a person for erosive activities where as a person in Eaton County has a "pet-peave" about it; so when a 'yooper' comes down to slum with us 'trolls', he doesn't understand why he's receiving a citation for something he's done all his life. A recommendation for corrective action would be either more extensive training for the DNR officers concerning matters of offroad trail use to ensure equal enforcement of all laws accross the board.

Again my opinion; but its not very helpful to just bitch about something in order to have people listen to you. To be constructive you'll need to format things much like we do here at the Urban Warfare Training Center. You need an Observation (what is wrong), Impact (How is this affecting the offroad community) and a Recommendation (how to fix it).

Don't get me wrong, I agree with everything said in the last 2 posts. But, just like we are observing here, one thought leads to another. I have been at meetings where I had no plan to speak. Then someone says something that sparks a comment from me.

I don't want everyone standing up and saying the same rehearsed phrases over and over. But, I also don't expect people to attend and feel pushed down because someone else is going to do the talking.

Looking like we have hidden behind closed doors to strategize and have our "attorney" speak is not always a good thing either.

You need an Observation (what is wrong), Impact (How is this affecting the offroad community) and a Recommendation (how to fix it).

Great post.

The quote above sounds a lot like:

If you don't have a solution to offer,
You don't have a problem to present.

I try to use this philosophy in my dealings with public agencies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiterhino

just like we are observing here, one thought leads to another. I have been at meetings where I had no plan to speak. Then someone says something that sparks a comment from me.

I also don't expect people to attend and feel pushed down because someone else is going to do the talking.

Looking like we have hidden behind closed doors to strategize and have our "attorney" speak is not always a good thing either.

By the way, I won't be there so I don't care.

I see 4 paragraphs . . .

1) Hopefully they're not looking for any return comment at all. Hey, maybe they want to show us what they want the next trail system addition to look like. Seriously though, it would be my hope that those attending would care enough to join GLFWDA. Anyone who had a thought sparked would write it down and ask themselves "Would this thought better serve the 4wd community as a comment now, or as an integral part of a cohesive, well laid out, response by the State level 4WD Association?". If they answer 'as a comment, now' then, by all means, stand and issue the comment.

2) I wouldn't want that either! I'm just hoping that people will think before they speak, or give their comments to GLFWDA after the meeting.

3) I agree that closed doors may appear inappropriate at times, but I believe a well thought out strategy is always good. I would only want the door closed to the Department while we debated the issue amongst ourselves, not wheelers.

4) Have fun on your trip! Wish I could join you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiterhino

Pat, I have to publicly disagree. GLFWDA is the organization that the DNR recognizes and is most likely to address about the video. So, yes GLFWDA needs to be the center of response.

However, this is a public meeting. We have been begging people to attend. If they want to speak, they legally are allowed to and I believe they should. The DNR needs to hear from more than "the usual few".

The key is, as I stated above, polite, well mannered, dressed well goes much further than yelling and screaming. People need to show that they can be professional.

We have all seen what yelling and screaming has done for OMB. Everyone considers him an idiot.

I'm sorry! I think I'm failing to differentiate between comments made by "John Doe/ Wheeler at Large (or member of Blank 4wd Club)" from the "Official GLFWDA" response. I'd like to see GLFWDA make one, well laid out, response.

I'm hoping the 'public' will consider assisting GLFWDA by writing their ideas down and adding it to the GLFWDA response as an option/alternative to speaking at the meeting.

If you don't have a solution to offer,
You don't have a problem to present.

I think TF follows what I'm saying, but just to clarify some more. We (speaking for TF now) mean all of this to apply AT THE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING. By all means, present the problems that you see need to be addressed to fellow offroaders, and if you dont have a solution to the problem, we will (internally) develop a potential solution. THEN present the problem with solution to the Advisory Board.

I may piss some ladies off with this, but think of when you wife is asking you to do the impossible... like give her great sex AND stay awake afterward. Yet she won't let you watch TV during/after. She's giving you a problem, without any possible solution.

I disagree Geo. Although he comes off annoying as hell most of the time, OMB appears to have a valid point.

I had seen these discrepancies on the DNR website and shot an email to the webmaster hoping it was an error on the page or that the website just hadn't been updated in a VERY long time. Thus far, no response. I haven't contacted Mr. Kubisiak to ask WTF(?) yet, but if these people are still sitting in chairs that they should have been out of long ago, I'd like to know WHY they're still there. Is there a lack of viable candidates able to fulfill the qualifications necessary to hold the position? Or is this an abuse of power as so gently hinted at by OMB?

I do not know what is going on. I'm very far away. I'm just trying to ensure I'm properly informed by collecting documentation and not making assumptions or taking someone's word for it.

These term extensions were never announced over this long period of time.

Repeated requests for any kind of explanation over that time period (and obviously well before; as the public sat waiting for their chance to aplly) have simply been ignored by not only those in control...but every single member of the Michigan orv community who had this blatant abuse of power literally thrown in their face on a daily basis.

Throw in the fact that there is now a 6 million dollar budget balance; 750 miles of trail to be laid down and not to mention tens of millions in fee increases to be divided up that could spike to hundreds of millions if the last unchanged fee period holds true...and you can see why I'm the bastard for pointing any of this out while continually being THREATENED to boot. http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showthread.php?t=36508

If you all want me to just quietly fade into the sunset here from my obvious lack of simple 'stand up like a man' support; so be it.

Yet if I receive anything but from even one of you after being the only one to 'dare' question any of this......

I disagree Geo. Although he comes off annoying as hell most of the time, OMB appears to have a valid point.

I had seen these discrepancies on the DNR website and shot an email to the webmaster hoping it was an error on the page or that the website just hadn't been updated in a VERY long time. Thus far, no response. I haven't contacted Mr. Kubisiak to ask WTF(?) yet, but if these people are still sitting in chairs that they should have been out of long ago, I'd like to know WHY they're still there. Is there a lack of viable candidates able to fulfill the qualifications necessary to hold the position? Or is this an abuse of power as so gently hinted at by OMB?

I do not know what is going on. I'm very far away. I'm just trying to ensure I'm properly informed by collecting documentation and not making assumptions or taking someone's word for it.

I didnt have a problem applying for a seat on the ORV AB, the super secret council must have let me in on it when the terms were up

So to answer your doubt Nick in Cali, the public is made aware of it, just not OMB. If you were to read his ramblings you will realize that he is not someone who could sit on such a board, hence him not knowing about seat assignments or seat openings, that boy is just not right!

The Dept. showed the video as an example of why they were hammered by the Forest Certification Inspectors. The trail has flowing water that drains into the near-by river, wetland vegitation, and places where it's 3 lanes wide from people trying to go around the mud holes. They say the trail is closed by signs and berms at both ends and that the video is still "under investigation".

If I were someone with a license plate shown in that vid, I think I'd be preparing to talk to a C.O.!

No comment was expected from any of the enthusiasts or GLFWDA on the subject. There was some banter, but nothing substantial except what I mentioned above.

I'm not worried about a C.O as the trail was open when i ran it. I guess all they could get me for is the 2wd forest road rule. In that case i will talk to the guys i know at the timber company who told me it was legal to drive. The trail only has one "end" so i don't see how its bermed at both ends. It isn't state owned land so the states third party forest cert inspectors couldn't have hammered them about it.

Edit: the truly sad part is if that is the state of offroading in Michigan then as soon as i graduate i will move out of state, to someplace with available jobs, and wheeling that is legal. Our laws regarding wheeling are worse than the almighty Nazi California. And if Michigan doesn't want to make it legal then i will go someplace where it is and pay that state my taxes.

Is it better to be up front, and show that we don't approve of it, or should we just act like it doesn't happen?

What I see in this thread, is numerous people who were just informed its illegal to do this kind of stuff.

I think this is good for the sport.

And about you thinking the DNR reads this forum, I know they do. There are numerous CO's here, because they used their DNR email address to register. They also login almost daily.

Touche`

You're right about the people just learning that it's illegal to do this stuff. I imagine, that ANY video of offroading in Michigan that isn't at an ORV Park is potentially illegal. Thanks for resizing my britches.

And if you can see where I'm logging on from... you know I'm bored today just don't tell the boss.

very good read here. im glad we dont have the kind of restrictions up here as you have there but they are coming im sure.we have several groups that are fighting these kinds of rules and closers here but it takes time and money to fight them.
it just another reason to be a member of a club-more names on a piece of paper hold more weight than individuals when it comes to law makers.
im going to link this thread to our local board to show them how bad it can be and how it is well worth the time and money to help fight these kinds of laws and closers.